SPECviewperf 11 tests

The Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation is "...a non-profit corporation formed to establish, maintain and endorse a standardized set of relevant benchmarks that can be applied to the newest generation of high-performance computers." Their free SPECviewperfbenchmark incorporates code and tests contributed by several other companies and is designed to stress computers in a reproducible way. SPECviewperf 11 was released in June 2010 and incorporates an expanded range of capabilities and tests. Note that results from previous versions of SPECviewperf cannot be compared with results from the latest version, as even benchmarks with the same name have been updated with new code and models.

SPECviewperf comprises test code from several vendors of professional graphics modelling, rendering, and visualization software. Most of the tests emphasize the CPU over the graphics card, and have between 5 and 13 sub-sections.

PCT Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire

The proe-05 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire5.0 application from PTC. Model sizes range from 7- to 13-million vertices.

This viewset includes state changes as made by the application throughout the rendering of the model, including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

Siemens Teamcenter Visualization Mockup

The tcvis-02 viewset is based on traces of the Siemens Teamcenter Visualization Mockup application (also known as VisMockup) used for visual simulation. Models range from 10- to 22-million vertices and incorporate vertex arrays and fixed-function lighting.

State changes such as those executed by the application— including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes— are included throughout the rendering of the model. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

In Pro/ENGINEER, the AMD processors dominate (although not by much), with only the Intel 980X beating the AMD 965BE and stock-clocked 1075T and 1090T, although its advantage over the much cheaper 1090T is a fraction of a point. The overclocked 1075T wins overall. Multiple cores don't seem to have any advantage in this test; pure clock speed seems to be the critical factor.

The processor rankings swap in the Teamcenter Visualization mockup results, with every Intel processor beating every AMD processor, even to the point of the low-end Core i5-750 posting a better score than the heavily overclocked 1075T. If nothing else, these two tests provide a real-world reminder that some code runs better on AMD CPUs, while other code runs better on Intel CPUs. While the differences are typically minimal enough not to matter to the typical gamer or enthusiast, those who spend their days in front of professional workstations should take note.

Lightwave

The lightwave-01 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workloads generated by the SPECapc for Lightwave 9.6 benchmark.

The models for this viewset range in size from 2.5- to 6-million vertices, with heavy use of vertex buffer objects (VBOs) mixed with immediate mode. GLSL shaders are used throughout the tests. Applications represented by the viewset include 3D character animation, architectural review, and industrial design.

CEI EnSight

CEI contributed the models and suggested workloads. Models ranging from 36- to 45-million vertices are included in the viewset using display list paths through OpenGL. The last model uses GLSL shaders. State changes as made by the application are included throughout the rendering of the model, including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

The EnSight results appear to be relatively processor-insensitive; neither clock speed nor number of cores affect the results significantly. This is not surprising since this test relies mainly on the graphics card's OpenGL driver. The overclocked 1075T turns in the highest score, but it's a mere 3% better than the lowest score (the Intel Core i7-930).

The Lightwave results are quite interesting, and seem to favor Intel. Performance scales well in the Intel camp, with scores going up with both clock speed and number of cores. In the AMD arena, extra cores don't seem to buy you much, with the stock-clocked hexacore 1075T and 1090T turning in results only very slightly better than the quad-core 965BE. The overclocked 1075T wins, but not by anywhere near the margin one would expect from the 33% improvement in its clock rate.

Dassault Systemes CATIA

The catia-03 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the CATIAV5 R19 and CATIA V6 R2009 applications from Dassault Systemes.

Three models are measured using various modes in CATIA. Phil Harris of LionHeart Solutions, developer of CATBench2003, supplied SPECgpc with the models used to measure the CATIA application. The models are courtesy of CATBench2003 and CATIA Community. The models, ranging in size from 6.3- to 25-million vertices, use a variety of common CATIA graphics modes. Both CATIA V5 and V6 are represented using fixed pipeline and ARB vertex and fragment shaders.

Maya

The maya-03 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the SPECapc for Maya 2009 benchmark. The models used in the tests range in size from 6- to 66-million vertices, and are tested with and without vertex and fragment shaders.

State changes such as those executed by the application— including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes— are included throughout the rendering of the models. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

The Catia benchmark results show little difference between the processors. While the results are not as similar as the EnSight results, there's still very little spread between the various CPUs. In either case, clock speed seems marginally more important than the number of cores.

As with the Seimens Teamcenter Visualization test, the Maya test favors Intel processors, but even more heavily. The modest 2.66GHz, quad-core Intel Core i5-750 handily beats the 4.15GHz, hexacore AMD 1075T. In the AMD camp, clock speed seems to count for more than number of cores, with the stock-clocked 3.0GHz 1075T falling slightly behind the 3.4GHz 965BE.

Solidworks 2009

The sw-03 viewset was created from traces of the graphics workload generated by the Solidworks 2009 SP2 application from Dassault Systemes. Model sizes range from 2- to 20-million vertices in a variety of commonly used SolidWorks render modes, including RealView, which makes use of GLSL shaders.

State changes as made by the application are included throughout the rendering of the model, including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

Seimens NX

The snx-01viewset is based on traces of the Siemens NX 7 application. The traces represent very large models containing between 11- and 62-million vertices, which are rendered in modes available in Siemens NX 7.

State changes such as those executed by the application— including matrix, material, light and line-stipple changes— are included throughout the rendering of the model. All state changes are derived from a trace of the running application.

Solidworks results scale nicely with the Intel processors, but are flat for the AMD processors. This makes sense when you look at the clock speeds: the AMD 965BE, 1075T, and 1090T all fall in the 3.0-3.4GHz range, while the Intel processor results scale almost perfectly with clock speed (I say "almost" because the 2.8GHz Core i7-930 turns in noticeably better results then the Core i7-860, even though both are clocked at 2.8GHz). The overclocked AMD 1075T barely edges our the Intel Core i7-980X in this test.

The results for the Seimens NX test are "flat", with little difference between the processors. The winning 980X turns in a score only 9% better than the bottom performing stock-clocked 1075T. As with the EnSight test, it seems as though system factors other than the processor (i.e. probably the video card) make the most difference.

Temperatures, even under overclocked stress testing, were pretty low, never exceeding 56 degrees. Well, low in contrast to Intel processors...the max temperature of the 1075T is 62 degrees, I believe, so this overclock would require good cooling in the hot summer months.

=> Slight typo...The mainstream desktop version of Sandy Bridge uses LGA1155. It has a different electrical layout to the current LGA1156. They aren't compatible with each other...I checked with an Engineering Sample.

You're right: motherboards based on NVIDIA chipsets will (obviously!) handle SLI. I had one of the classic ASUS A8N SLI Deluxe motherboards myself some years ago, but didn't know there were any similar AM3 boards available.

Well done David. I've owned/operated/OC'd Intel, Cyrix (stop laughing), and AMD chips over the years. You nailed down all my thoughts with data sheets. I'm not known as a fanboi of anything. But I concluded years ago that AMD was making products that would be fast enough, would survive upgrades on the same MB for at least a generation or two, and all things taken together allow more budget for other component upgrades more regularly. (yes, my budget for Mr.&Mrs. Frankenclone and their kids only comes after beans, bills, and keeping Mama happy)

Is Intel good? You bethcha skippy. Could they be in any rig I build? I'd enjoy that. But my last few MB/CPUs have been AMD due to the "bang for the buck" factor. Looks like my next upgrade in that category will be also. Thanks for playing Intel. We have some nice parting gifts for you. Maybe down the road....

Another very 'true to the facts' review by Benchmark. But have a few doubts. First, "Cannot support an NVIDIA SLI system "- I'm not sure this a con for a cpu. Might be wrong here but if something to be blamed for not supporting SLI, it's the 890GX/FX chipset in this case. And it's not a platform review. Secondly, any clue how the mighty i7 980x is beaten by 930 in UGS Visualization mockup? From the things it looks like TCVIS is memory bandwidth intensive, even then it doesn't make sence. finaly "if you're not doing a lot of music or video encoding" may seem to fly-by viewers as if 965 BE or i7 750 were incompetent. I've a OCed 955 BE and do a lot of transcoding for professional purpose and haven't felt the urge to upgrade to hexas yet. The only reason I say this because there are many people who think downloading some videos from youtube and converting'em to .avi is a 'lot' of encoding :D Thanks for this fine article again.

I don't always agree with the conclusions our writers give a product, but without their unique perspective this website would be quite monotone. As I warn in the conclusion of my article, take each conclusion into consideration of your own criteria for grading any particular product. What we like and dislike may not apply to you.

As another respondent has pointed out, there are still NVIDIA based AM3 solutions that will support SLI with this proc, so that's a good point (that's already been made).

"any clue how the mighty i7 980x is beaten by 930 in UGS Visualization mockup?"

Nope. I runs the tests, I reports the results, I speculate on the reasons when I can. This one's a mystery.

Yep, you can do a lot of transcoding on an overclocked 4-core proc; but more cores are still better. It's arguable whether the extra performance is worth the money; I suppose it would depend more on whether one was in a hobby or production environment...

David, thanks for your reply. And apologies for reiterating that SLI point. And yes I suppose two extar cores ain't going to harm. And the pricing by AMD makes them more attractive. Just hope that developers make some more softwares which could scale on those. That aside these procs are just good enough to force Intel sale i7 950 @ $300. Regards.

@ Markus: 1075T is part of a refreshment from AMD on it's Thuban core architecture. Previous 1055T and 1090T had 125W and there've been no die shrink or tweaks so these new proc also has the same TDP. Use your common sense before calling someone dimwit. And yes, they are efficient in the regard that they don't have the luxury of 32nm and yet keep the TDP at low 125W as stated in the article. Just remember two facts that the 1st gen Phenom 2s were rated 140W and 32nm six core Intel i7 980x/970 have an envelope of 130W. And you'll see efficiency in 125W.

you talk like a child who is ashamed of coming to school in reebok shoes when all the other kids have nike and adidas, like the choice of processor comes down to its process granularity in a trendy fashion way.

I wrote the article from the enthusiast perspective, and I assumed (obviously in error) that most readers would understand the advantages of the 32nm process Intel is so aggressively moving its product line towards. You know, more dies per wafer, therefore better profit margins, not to mention all the other purely technical benefits of smaller processes in general.

If you disagree with technical issues in the review, fine; if you just don't like my writing style, go start your own hardware review site and show us how to do it.

i AM A NEW PERSIOHAE KNOELEDGE FOR SYSTEM CONFIGURSTION. mY SON IS HIGHEND GAME EDICT. NOW HE WANTS THE HIGHEND GAMING MACHINE WITH AMD Phenom-II X6-1075T CPU HDT75TFBK6DGR AS HIS FRIEND DOES HAVE BUT HE STILL NOT SURE ABOUT OTHER HARDWARE IN SYSTEMOF HIS FRIEND AND ALL THIS FOR ME IS GRICK AND LATIN.THEREFOR SOME ONE PLEASE SUGEST ME A COMPLITE SOLUTION FOR HIS SYSTEMOBLIGED

TYVM, David, for this review. It has answered some of my questions about the new AMD hex cores. Mostly to do with performance @ same clock speeds of these processors.However I would still like to know, how the 1035T & 1055T shape up against the 1075T/1090T/1100T. Are these all essentially the same processor, with different clock speeds or is there some real difference when dropping from the 1075T to the 1055T?

What would be the difference of OCing a 1055T @ 4GHZ (is this possible, with a stable system?) Vs a 1075T @ 4GHZ, if all other hardware was the same?

Noe made a good question, and trying to find it out was exactly what brought me here. I'm about to buy either a 1055T or a 1075T. I live in Brazil, where hardware is usually very expensive and prices don't always follow the same logic and proportions as in the U.S. Here, the 1075T almost matches the 1090T in price and therefore is usually not a good value, but occasionally one can find deals placing it closer in price to the 1055T, and in that case I'd like to know if it's worth to pay more for it, however little, as I have seen several reviews achieving stable 4 GHz and beyond for the 1055T as well.

In fact, I may not even feel the need to overclock it (the "fast enough" thing), but it's so comforting to know that if I do, I can possibly get near-980X performance for a fraction of the price...

Another good question would be power consumption. I have read that when you overclock X6's they start gushing up power like mad, reaching up to 300 watts (yes, just the processor, not the whole PC) at around 4 GHz. That's something to consider as well, when deciding if it's worth to overclock it and to what extent.

Finally, a more straightforward question: you said similar results would probably only be possible with an 890FX mainboard. I'd love to have one, but they are prohibitively expensive here. So, I have the crippled version of it, an 890GX mainboard. Do you think the GX could yield similar results?

Since the time of my first post here, I have been researching other sites/forums to see if the 1055T can be OC'd @ 4GHZ.

While I have found that it is possible & with a stable system, the rest of my question still remains.Also I am now wondering about the effects OCing a 1055T this high would have on the longevity of the CPU & whether this would differ for the 1075T at all? (I realize that any answer to this would be mostly speculation & also be dependent on cooling solutions etc.)

#RE: RE: Good question, also energy and 890GX —
David Ramsey2010-12-10 08:54

Noe: As long as you can keep the CPU temperatures reasonable, I think any "reduction in life" of a CPU caused by overclocking would be minimal. But this is just speculation. I've been overclocking for more than a decade and I've never lost one yet, overclocking, say, an old Motoroal 68040 from 33MHz to 40MHz is quantitatively different from taking a modern processor to 4GHz. For one thing, the TDP on a 68040 was only 20 watts!

#RE: Good question, also energy and 890GX —
David Ramsey2010-12-10 08:50

Goyta: We have not tested a 1055T here at Benchmark Reviews, but I'd guess that its overclocking capability would be similar to the 1075T. Overclocking any processor increases the power consumption (which is why you need better cooling), but remember that the processor won't be running at 4GHz all the time (unless you've disabled power saving features in the BIOS). Re the overclocking performance of an 890GX mainboard, again, I haven't tested one of those, and can only guess how well it would work. The 890FX motherboards are aimed at enthusiasts and will generally have better power supply circuits, cooling, etc...it's more than just the chipset. Obviously if you plan to overclock you should look for a higher end motherboard. That said, I imagine a good 890GX motherboard could at least come quite close to the OC capabilities of an 890FX motherboard.

David, thank you very much. It has been a while since I last posted here, and in the meantime I have upgraded my PC as planned - actually, better than planned. A combination of slightly smaller prices due to launching the 1100T, a good deal and a bit more money available than I had thought I would, all have made me go for a 1090T. This is, of course, a Black Edition processor, so overclocking it is a breeze if you have proper cooling (I got an Akasa Nero 2, which while not "top" is a fairly decent CPU cooler and should give me some room if I decide to do that).

But that is not in my plans for now. I have found that even at stock speeds, it is scaringly fast! I simply don't need to overclock it, and don't think I will need it any time soon. I'm also impressed at the thermal efficiency: when idle on a not so hot day (I live in a subtropical latitude and it's summer here down South now), CPU temperature gets as low as 21°C, and I'm yet to see it go over 44°C under stress. Well, I wanted a PC to last several years, and I've got one. I'm very happy. Thanks a lot for your help!

Noe, there is no "1035T". And we've never received a 1055T here for review, so I can't compare it to the 1075T/1090T/1100T...but I'm pretty sure it's just the standard Thuban 6-core design with a different multiplier, so if I had to bet, I'd say you could probably overclock it to the same degree as a 1075T. Remember that since it's not a Black Edition processor, the only way to overclock it is to raise the base clock. FWIW, AMD lists 6 Thuban processors: 1045T, 1055T, 1065T, 1075T, 1090T, and 1100T. As best I can tell the 1045T and 1065T are not available at the retail level but are OEM-only parts.

The 1035T does exist but is probably OEM only aswell. Also there is a 1055T 125W version & a 1055T 95W version. The 95W version is interesting because, from what I have read, it has a higher temp tolerance of 71C compared to 62C for the 125W version.If I understand it right, both these versions OCd to 4GHZ would draw the same power under load but at idle with power saving enabled, the 95W version should draw less power.

Got mine month ago. On 4+1 phase gigabyte 790FX-DS5 i couldn't overclock at all. Mosfet would get too hot and I got lower fps/results with higher frequency(3,2-3,6GHz) than the stock 3,0GHz.

So I bought the ASUS M4A89GTD PRO (8+2 phase) and I reborned with it. I reached 4,0GHz in a minute with 1,425V. Max for 3D bench is 4,2-4,3GHz and the most i got with this combination on air is 4,5GHz @ 1,596V. That was very unstable but enough for one round of super pi 1M and then BSOD.

For 24/7 I am holding it at 3,8GHz @ 1,375V. I use Scythe Mugen 2 and temperatures are very good. About 45C in games, 52-53C in occt. With 4GHz 55-57C in OCCT. Scythe Mugen 2 is very very silent cooler i recommand it.

Dont use X6 processor on 4+1 phase motherboard if you want to overclock. 4+1 phase is only OK for stock 3.0GHz nothing more.